Charles Perrow Emeritus Professor Yale University Visiting Professor Stanford University radiation from atomic bombs nuclear processing plants and nuclear power plants in several countries ID: 444444
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Nuclear Deniers: Guilty Knowledge of Rad..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Nuclear Deniers: Guilty Knowledge of Radiation from Hiroshima to Fukushima
Charles Perrow, Emeritus Professor, Yale University
Visiting Professor, Stanford UniversitySlide2
radiation from
atomic
bombs,
nuclear
processing plants, and
nuclear
power plants
in
several countries:
Japan
, the USA, the Soviet Union, the UK, Germany and France
Slide3
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 Slide4
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
1945
“No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin”
“Survey Rules out Nagasaki Dangers” Slide5
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
1945
“No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin”
“Survey Rules out Nagasaki Dangers”
“Radioactivity after atomic bomb is only 1000
th
of that from luminous dial watch.”
Slide6
1953
: AEC: low
-level exposure to radiation “can be continued indefinitely without any detectable bodily change.
”Slide7
1953: AEC: low
-level exposure to radiation “can be continued indefinitely without any detectable bodily change.
”
1954:
H-bomb explosion in Marshall Islands;
Residents and fishermen exposedSlide8
1953: AEC: low
-level exposure to radiation “can be continued indefinitely without any detectable bodily change.
”
1954: H-bomb explosion in Marshall Islands;
Residents and fishermen exposed
“…they are more like us than the mice."Slide9
1956:
Nat. Acad. of Scientists:
Nuclear scientists: low-level radiation not harmful.
Geneticists: all levels are harmful.Slide10
1956: Nat. Acad. of Scientists: Nuclear scientists: low-level radiation not harmful.
Geneticists: all levels are harmful.
2005
BEIR VII: any dose harmful; extensive health effects other than cancer including genetic generational changes.Slide11
1956: Nat. Acad. of Scientists: Nuclear scientists: low-level radiation not harmful.
Geneticists: all levels are harmful.
2005 BEIR VII: any dose harmful; extensive health effects other than cancer including genetic generational changes.
Radiation-related excess deaths: 2,850 to 3,800
Bomb death rate from immediate effects:
about 200,000Slide12
Nuclear bomb fuel processing plants
1957
Windscale, UK. Large areas of Wales contaminated. No announcement.Slide13
Nuclear bomb fuel processing plants
1957 Windscale, UK. Large areas of Wales contaminated. No announcement.
1957
Chelyabinsk, Soviet Union, Ural Mountains. Nearly one half a million people irradiated. Secret for 30 years. Slide14
Accepting nuclear
1953:
US National Security Council:
"The President and Secretary [John Foster] Dulles were in complete agreement that somehow or other the
tabu
[sic] which surrounds the use of atomic weapons would have to be
destroyed
.”
“ While Secretary Dulles admitted that in the present state of world opinion we could not use an A-bomb, we should make every effort now to
dissipate this feeling
."
Slide15
1953
AEC Chair:
“highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is
more favorable to weapons development and tests.”
As a DOD official put it in 1953: "The
atomic bomb
will be
accepted
far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends
Slide16
1953 AEC Chair:
“highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is
more favorable to weapons development and tests.”
As a DOD official put it in 1953: "The
atomic bomb
will be
accepted
far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends.”
In 1953 the State Department warned that the civilian nuclear power industry could be seriously damaged because of the “
mistaken impression
” that low-level radiation is hazardous. Slide17
1959:
International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)
and the World Health Organization (WHO)
agree not to release radiation effects data the other has not agreed to. Slide18
1959: International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)
and the World Health Organization (WHO)
agree not to release radiation effects data the other has not agreed to.
IAEA: to promote nuclear power, oversee its safety, and study the effects of radiation – conflicting mandatesSlide19
1979:
Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, PA
Negligible radiation declaredSlide20
1979: Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, PA
Negligible radiation declared
1990
Columbia University: radiation too low to account for observed increases in cancer.
Stress cited. Slide21
1979: Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, PA
Negligible radiation declared
1990: Columbia University: radiation too low to account for observed increases in cancer.
Stress cited.
1997:
University of California, Berkeley:
“Accident doses were positively associated with cancer incidence. Associations were largest for leukemia, intermediate for lung cancer, and smallest for all cancers combined; larger for longer than for shorter latency; and larger with adjustment for socioeconomic variables.”
Slide22
1987:
Chernobyl, USSR
Not announced for 2 days; late evacuation; no warnings on food; radiation sickness not allowed as diagnosis, etc.
The radioactive cloud spread over Belarus, the Ukraine and parts of Russia, and then Europe. Slide23
Chernobyl deaths:
United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR):
64
(workforce only)
UN Chernobyl Forum (UNSCEAR, IAEA, WHO)
4,000
deaths among the “liquidators.”
Another report
estimates an additional
5,000
deaths among the 6 million living in the contaminated areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, giving us 9,000. Slide24
Chernobyl deaths continued:
Union of Concerned Scientists:
50,000
excess cancer cases and
25,000
excess deaths.
Greenpeace:
200,000
Russia scientists:
950,000
premature cancer deathsSlide25
IAEA: Not victims, but survivors. Calling them victims:
“
has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. This, in turn, has led either to over cautious behavior and exaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as consumption of mushrooms, berries and game from areas still designated as highly contaminated, overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous sexual activity.
Slide26
IAEA: Not victims, but survivors. Calling them victims:
“
has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. This, in turn, has led either to over cautious behavior and exaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as consumption of mushrooms, berries and game from areas still designated as highly contaminated, overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous sexual activity.
we might ask how wise it is to build systems whose failure will prompt citizens in the affected area to engage in such destructive behavior.
Slide27
What if the plants behaved well?
Children at highest risk.
2002
study of 8 US nuclear plants closed in 1987. Strontium 90 in milk drops sharply, as did birth defects and infant deaths.
Slide28
What if the plants behaved well?
Children at highest risk. 2002 study of 8 US nuclear plants closed in 1987. Strontium 90 in milk drops sharply, as did birth defects and infant deaths.
Biggest effect is childhood leukemia (CL)
Germany, 2007 study found CL twice as likely near all 16 nuclear power plants. Could not determine cause.
Slide29
What if the plants behaved well?
Children at highest risk. 2002 study of 8 US nuclear plants closed in 1987. Strontium 90 in milk drops sharply, as did birth defects and infant deaths.
Biggest effect is childhood leukemia (CL)
Germany, 2007 study found CL twice as likely near all 16 nuclear power plants. Could not determine cause.
French 2012 study: similar results for 54 nuclear power plants. Cannot attribute to gaseous discharges.
Slide30
2011:
Fukushima’s rosy predictions:
Nuclear Energy Institute declared two months after the accident, that ‘
no health effects
are expected among the Japanese people as a result of the events at Fukushima.’
The Fukushima Medical University in February, 2012, reported only about 29 people were expected to have doses over 10
millisieverts
(
mSv
), and
the highest recorded does was 23
mSv
,
well below the 100-mSv exposure level that might lead to a slight increase in cancer risk. Slide31
Scientific American
(republished in
Nature
):
Those exposed, one expert said, “are probably getting better care than they were before” the accident.
“Mental health is the most significant issue” said a professor of gerontology in Japan.
Slide32
Scientific American
(republished in
Nature
):
Those exposed, one expert said, “are probably getting better care than they were before” the accident.
“Mental health is the most significant issue” said a professor of gerontology in Japan.
"In terms of the health impact, the radiation is negligible," he said. "The radiation will cause very few, close to no deaths."
(Prof. at Columbia University)
"Much of the damage was really psychological—the stress of not knowing, of being relocated." (Berkeley professor)Slide33
No point in making studies:
Columbia U. radiologist: “40% of everybody will get cancer…
It doesn’t seem to me that it’s possible to do an epidemiological study that will see an increased risk.”
Slide34
No point in making studies:
Columbia U. radiologist: “40% of everybody will get cancer…
It doesn’t seem to me that it’s possible to do an epidemiological study that will see an increased risk.”
Head of US agency on protection and measurement: “
There’s no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance of success.’
’Slide35
No point in making studies:
Columbia U. radiologist: “40% of everybody will get cancer…
It doesn’t seem to me that it’s possible to do an epidemiological study that will see an increased risk.”
Head of US agency on protection and measurement: “
There’s no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance of success.’
’
“The doses are just too low,’’ he said. “If you were to do a proposal, it would not pass a scientific review.’’ Slide36
British sociologist:
T
he accident “actually represent a compelling case for [nuclear power] expansion, as even these old fashioned reactors have withstood the worse that nature could throw at them.”
Slide37
British sociologist:
the accident “actually represent a compelling case for [nuclear power] expansion, as even these old fashioned reactors have withstood the worse that nature could throw at them.”
Unit 4 spent storage pool 100 feet up in a shaky, damaged building with high radioactivity, with as much Cesium 137 as at Chernobyl. Slide38
British sociologist:
the accident “actually represent a compelling case for [nuclear power] expansion, as even these old fashioned reactors have withstood the worse that nature could throw at them.”
Unit 4 spent storage pool 100 feet up in a shaky, damaged building with high radioactivity, with as much Cesium 137 as at Chernobyl.
US government grant to MIT to examine
the "difficulties in gaining the broad social acceptance" of nuclear power.
Slide39
Some doubts:
the external exposures over a 90 day period were between 20 -64 times the natural background radiation, or the equivalent of 300-950 chest ex-rays. Slide40
Some doubts:
the external exposures over a 90 day period were between 20 -64 times the natural background radiation, or the equivalent of 300-950 chest ex-rays.
The 70,000 people who spent a year in contaminated land outside of the evacuated area were exposed to an external radioactivity 100 times higher than normal background radiation in that first year. Slide41
Some doubts:
the external exposures over a 90 day period were between 20 -64 times the natural background radiation, or the equivalent of 300-950 chest ex-rays.
The 70,000 people who spent a year in contaminated land outside of the evacuated area were exposed to an external radioactivity 100 times higher than normal background radiation in that first year.
a rough estimate of a cancer rate of 2%, with 1,400 people expected to contract cancer due to the additional radiation from fallout
during the year
. Slide42
a child living in one village and spending about 8 hours of the day outside and 16 hours inside would be exposed to about 148
mSv
in the course of a year - 100 times the natural background radiation in Japan. This contradicts the WHO report of only 10-50
mSv
.Slide43
a child living in one village and spending about 8 hours of the day outside and 16 hours inside would be exposed to about 148
mSv
in the course of a year - 100 times the natural background radiation in Japan. This contradicts the WHO report of only 10-50
mSv
.
Over 35% of young people tested have thyroid cysts (
a fluid-filled sac
) or nodules (a solid tumor which could be carcinogenetic) according to a survey conducted in March of 2011
Slide44
a child living in one village and spending about 8 hours of the day outside and 16 hours inside would be exposed to about 148
mSv
in the course of a year - 100 times the natural background radiation in Japan. This contradicts the WHO report of only 10-50
mSv
.
Over 35% of young people tested have thyroid cysts (
a fluid-filled sac
) or nodules (a solid tumor which could be carcinogenetic) according to a survey conducted in March of 2011
51% of the 527 children checked in after September, 2011, had internal exposures to cesium-137, and evidence of high-level exposure to gamma rays was detected Slide45
Conclusions: Fukushima not much different
Atomic bomb and testing denials
Secrecy surrounding Windscale and Chernobyl.
Fallout from TMI more serious than allowed
Multiple denials about Chernobyl
Radiation from normal operation plants deniedSlide46
Conclusions: Fukushima not much different
Atomic bomb and testing denials
Secrecy surrounding Windscale and Chernobyl.
Fallout from TMI more serious than allowed
Multiple denials about Chernobyl
Radiation from normal operation of plants denied
Vast investments at stake by weapons and power industries.
Grant money to scientists for whitewashing
Scientific ambiguity persists as
“no harm in low-level radiation” is replaced by
“too low to measure any harm.”